NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOEL JIMENEZ MERCADO, AKA No. 20-71511 Fernando Tellez Barrera, Agency No. A077-751-241 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge. Noel Jimenez Mercado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this Court * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. 1. Petitioner forfeited review of the agency’s denial of withholding of removal based on his proposed particular social group of his family by failing to challenge the BIA’s determination that this proposed particular social group was not cognizable. Etemadi v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1013, 1026–27 (9th Cir. 2021). But even if his claims were not forfeited, the BIA properly determined that this proposed particular social group was not cognizable. A “particular social group” must be “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014)). “The BIA’s conclusion regarding social distinction—whether there is evidence that a specific society recognizes a social group—is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). “To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner ‘must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these 2 findings and decisions are erroneous.’” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020)). The BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to show that his family group was socially distinct rested on the IJ’s finding that his entire family was not targeted for harm. That finding is supported by record evidence that not all members of Petitioner’s family received threats after his uncle’s kidnapping; rather, the evidence showed that only witnesses to the kidnapping were threatened. The record thus does not compel the conclusion that the BIA’s decision was erroneous. 2. Reviewing for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals